If thou gazest long into the Pit, the Pit will also gaze into thee

Karmakin wrote:Blah. Messed up the quote. Sorry.

For a moment there, I thought we'd have another Steers on our hands. God help us.

ReneeHendricks wrote:Seriously. Why is it so difficult for some to log in or get a damned account and log in? I keep thinking they're trying to hide who they are (cough, cough ... ool0n).

Certainly agree on the exasperation part, although I figure that the reason is more laziness or cluelessness. Can't see why anyone would think that comments tagged with "Guest" are worth reading much less responding to. This place is hard enough to keep up with as it is without trying to figure out which comment came from which Guest. Maybe there should be an automatic appending of the last digits of the Guest's IP address to the "Guest" prefix .... or even a hash of it ....

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:

Pitchguest wrote:Crommunist must be joking when he says 'witchhunt' must have a literal witch and a literal fire, right? I mean, he can't really be that stupid, can he?

Guess again. There's a reason I've given up on these muppets ("clown" is too nice a word).

The most amusing thing about Crom's blunder is that 'witches' (they weren't actually witches, Crom) executed in the 'witch trials' of Salem were hanged - they weren't actually burned. And contrary to popular belief, not all of them were women.

http://curiosity.discovery.com/question ... d-at-stake

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
Guess again. There's a reason I've given up on these muppets ("clown" is too nice a word).

Yuo talkin' shit about The Muppets?

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r276 ... h/0135.jpg

H. Korban wrote: Talking about books, you should also check out "The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner". This is a book that is funny and frightening in turn. It deftly illustrates how extreme fanaticism justifies all sort of horrendous behavior. One of the best fiction I have read.

Would this be it?

http://archive.org/details/privatememoirsco00hoggrich

Author: Hogg, James, 1770-1835
Publisher: London : Printed for Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green
Possible copyright status: NOT_IN_COPYRIGHT

Steersman wrote:

ReneeHendricks wrote:Seriously. Why is it so difficult for some to log in or get a damned account and log in? I keep thinking they're trying to hide who they are (cough, cough ... ool0n).

Certainly agree on the exasperation part, although I figure that the reason is more laziness or cluelessness. Can't see why anyone would think that comments tagged with "Guest" are worth reading much less responding to. This place is hard enough to keep up with as it is without trying to figure out which comment came from which Guest. Maybe there should be an automatic appending of the last digits of the Guest's IP address to the "Guest" prefix .... or even a hash of it ....

I tend to log on only to post as I spend most of my time lurking rather than posting. However I can see the attraction of posting under an anonymous "guest" moniker. Its easier to walk away from a comment you would much rather not have made. Given the unbelievable amount of shit I talk I wish I had that option irl.

Aneris wrote:Ok, to summarize again...

Statement wrote:These actions have generated much discussion, criticism and polarization within our community. In addition, they created an environment at CFI that made it very difficult for our producer, Adam Isaak, to continue working there.

Adam Isaak is said to be boy/friend to Rebecca Watson. Their statement is (understandably) smokes and mirrors, then. The honest version would read Adam Isaak's girl/friend Rebecca Watson harshly attacked his boss and unfairly compared him to "rape enablers" and misogynists and got into an argument with him (alternate universe exchange) and it made it impossible for them to reconcile (the others in the Ron Lindsay Affair managed to turn their coats, when they realized they couldn't remove Ron Lindsay). All of that made it somewhat difficult for Adam Isaak to work in that environment, so he and his team now do their own thing.

Shorter version:

My girlfriend attacked my boss who bitch slapped her. I am now forced to choose between no nooky or a new job. Seeing as I am lead around by my cock I has to get a new job.

That sum it up?

AndrewV69 wrote:

Aneris wrote:Ok, to summarize again...

Statement wrote:These actions have generated much discussion, criticism and polarization within our community. In addition, they created an environment at CFI that made it very difficult for our producer, Adam Isaak, to continue working there.

Adam Isaak is said to be boy/friend to Rebecca Watson. Their statement is (understandably) smokes and mirrors, then. The honest version would read Adam Isaak's girl/friend Rebecca Watson harshly attacked his boss and unfairly compared him to "rape enablers" and misogynists and got into an argument with him (alternate universe exchange) and it made it impossible for them to reconcile (the others in the Ron Lindsay Affair managed to turn their coats, when they realized they couldn't remove Ron Lindsay). All of that made it somewhat difficult for Adam Isaak to work in that environment, so he and his team now do their own thing.

Shorter version:

My girlfriend attacked my boss who bitch slapped her. I am now forced to choose between no nooky or a new job. Seeing as I am lead around by my cock I has to get a new job.

That sum it up?

:lol: Sounds about right.

ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:

Steersman wrote:Have you asked him? I expect he might say that that was his old un-re-educated self before he had seen the errors of his ways, had seen the light of True Feminism ™. At least as far as his “it works, bitches” comment is concerned.

But that doesn’t mean that he isn’t entitled to think that those who haven’t been similarly “enlightened” and who use such words are guilty of misogyny. And you and I are entitled to think, as I at least do, that he has his head well up his ass because there’s no empirical justification for his argument by which he makes that judgement.

So he's entitled to think that the 'unenlightened' are guilty of misogyny and yet somehow he was not a misogynist before his enlightenment? Don't forget that he was always a feminist. Further, how can he reserve such harsh judgement for the 'unenlightened' when in accordance with your defence above it is feasibly just a matter of timing and perspective, rather than a character issue, that separates him from the 'unenlightened'.

Those might well be reasonable questions to put to him the next time you see him or want to tweet him: I’ll readily agree that he’s arrogant and judgemental, and I think he’s very badly mistaken on a number of issues, notably the whole concept of “splash damage”. Here’s my own contribution on a related point that was raised here earlier:
However, I think none of that is particularly relevant to the question that started this whole sequence of comments, i.e., whether he can justifiably be called hypocritical for a series of very specific and well-defined actions in the past that took place well before he had even articulated a judgement – however erroneous or misguided – that such actions were ethically immoral and beyond the pale.

AndrewV69 wrote:

H. Korban wrote: Talking about books, you should also check out "The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner". This is a book that is funny and frightening in turn. It deftly illustrates how extreme fanaticism justifies all sort of horrendous behavior. One of the best fiction I have read.

Would this be it?

http://archive.org/details/privatememoirsco00hoggrich

Author: Hogg, James, 1770-1835
Publisher: London : Printed for Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green
Possible copyright status: NOT_IN_COPYRIGHT

Yes, this is it. It is a very strange book, but very good nonetheless. Perhaps not to everyone's taste but worth a try anyway.

Pagancat wrote:

Steersman wrote:

ReneeHendricks wrote:Seriously. Why is it so difficult for some to log in or get a damned account and log in? I keep thinking they're trying to hide who they are (cough, cough ... ool0n).

Certainly agree on the exasperation part, although I figure that the reason is more laziness or cluelessness. Can't see why anyone would think that comments tagged with "Guest" are worth reading much less responding to. This place is hard enough to keep up with as it is without trying to figure out which comment came from which Guest. Maybe there should be an automatic appending of the last digits of the Guest's IP address to the "Guest" prefix .... or even a hash of it ....

I tend to log on only to post as I spend most of my time lurking rather than posting. However I can see the attraction of posting under an anonymous "guest" moniker. Its easier to walk away from a comment you would much rather not have made. Given the unbelievable amount of shit I talk I wish I had that option irl.

I can sympathize – there have been a few of my posts and comments here, and statements IRL that I wouldn’t mind disowning or otherwise burying. However, I generally think that is counterproductive as it tends to disconnect one from the sources of one’s own correction. “Those who don’t learn from the mistakes of the past …”; the curative and correctional if painful benefits of feedback. And all that. :-)

Pagancat wrote:

Steersman wrote:

ReneeHendricks wrote:Seriously. Why is it so difficult for some to log in or get a damned account and log in? I keep thinking they're trying to hide who they are (cough, cough ... ool0n).

Certainly agree on the exasperation part, although I figure that the reason is more laziness or cluelessness. Can't see why anyone would think that comments tagged with "Guest" are worth reading much less responding to. This place is hard enough to keep up with as it is without trying to figure out which comment came from which Guest. Maybe there should be an automatic appending of the last digits of the Guest's IP address to the "Guest" prefix .... or even a hash of it ....

I tend to log on only to post as I spend most of my time lurking rather than posting. However I can see the attraction of posting under an anonymous "guest" moniker. Its easier to walk away from a comment you would much rather not have made. Given the unbelievable amount of shit I talk I wish I had that option irl.

Maybe some people think this a scary place or they will be doomed to hell shunning if they are known to post here.

Parody Accountant wrote:

Steersman wrote:doubtthat said:

… I have to conclude that you're an X-Man with the mutant ability to respond to any topic with a lengthy, tedious ramble that, despite impressive word counts, manage to say nothing.

Just call me “The Incredible Bulk” (1).

I frothed

Same here.

I am under the impression that doubtthat, to earn a daily crust is employed in legal issues, and if that is the case then the argument that Steersman is subjecting said luminary to "lengthy, tedious ramble" sufferers from a deficit of credibility, as one would expect that doubtthat would be sufficiently inured to, if not practised in the suppression of the symptoms that would otherwise ensure, were it any other person not so blessed.

No, the issue is likely that Steersman has applied at least one too many, if not more, citations to his companion in polite discourse too close together and thus excited a frightful foreboding that yet is more to come.

And so, same said such partner in debate, having realized, and thus consequently been seized with feelings of inadequacy, or perhaps entrapment, has determined to no longer suffer repeated percussion to the posterior in the near future, lest it result in the prostration, if not supplication of the entire body and thus weigh upon the spirit of said personage a weight too burdensome to endure.

One is amused, needless to say.

H. Korban wrote:

AndrewV69 wrote:

H. Korban wrote: Talking about books, you should also check out "The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner". This is a book that is funny and frightening in turn. It deftly illustrates how extreme fanaticism justifies all sort of horrendous behavior. One of the best fiction I have read.

Would this be it?

http://archive.org/details/privatememoirsco00hoggrich

Author: Hogg, James, 1770-1835
Publisher: London : Printed for Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green
Possible copyright status: NOT_IN_COPYRIGHT

Yes, this is it. It is a very strange book, but very good nonetheless. Perhaps not to everyone's taste but worth a try anyway.

I am currently on page 16. I had meant to put it on my list but now ...

AndrewV69 wrote:

Parody Accountant wrote:

Steersman wrote:doubtthat said:
"… I have to conclude that you're an X-Man with the mutant ability to respond to any topic with a lengthy, tedious ramble that, despite impressive word counts, manage to say nothing."
Just call me “The Incredible Bulk” (1).

I frothed

Same here.
<snip>
One is amused, needless to say.

:lol: :clap:

H. Korban wrote:

AndrewV69 wrote:

H. Korban wrote: Talking about books, you should also check out "The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner". This is a book that is funny and frightening in turn. It deftly illustrates how extreme fanaticism justifies all sort of horrendous behavior. One of the best fiction I have read.

Would this be it?

http://archive.org/details/privatememoirsco00hoggrich

Author: Hogg, James, 1770-1835
Publisher: London : Printed for Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green
Possible copyright status: NOT_IN_COPYRIGHT

Yes, this is it. It is a very strange book, but very good nonetheless. Perhaps not to everyone's taste but worth a try anyway.

So far it is a familiar one to me anyway. I can pretty much guess how it is going to end already. I am only to intimate with Scottish Presbyterians and their ilk. Old quarrels between Whigs and Cavaliers, bloody Bonnie Prince Charlie, Glencoe and the Campbells, Montrose and MacLeod of Assynt.

My mother passionately recited this passage at least a thousand times while I was growing up:

A traitor sold him to his foes;
O deed of deathless shame!
I charge thee, boy, if e'er thou meet
With one of Assynt's name--
Be it upon the mountain's side,
Or yet within the glen,
Stand he in martial gear alone,
Or backed by armèd men--
Face him, as thou wouldst face the man
Who wronged thy sire's renown;
Remember of what blood thou art,
And strike the caitiff down!

These are old grudges, carried from generation to generation. I have never once said anything about all of this to my kids. So hopefully it stops with them.

Can someone explain to me what the point of a filibuster is?

AndrewV69 wrote:

Southern wrote: But don't blame me, I'm just retweeting shit I read from some Latino douches and glanced over. El tarado correndo atras de la buseta! Or something.

Que es esto? My spanish is not that great. What is this about a running behind a minivan?

It's a joke phrase used to show how Spanish and Portuguese can sound so similar, yet mean different things. the full phrase is:

"Ala viene um tarado pelado com su saco en la mano, corriendo atrás de la buseta"
(There goes a foolish bald man with his coat in hands, running after a minivan)

"Lá vem um tarado pelado com seu saco na mão, correndo atrás da buceta"
(There goes a nude sex-offender, with his ballsack in hads, running after a cunt [in the vaginal sense, not describing PZ Myers])

The joke is, the words that are written differently actually do mean the same thing in Spanish and Portuguese (ala = lá, viene = vem, con su = com seu...), while the words that are written the same mean completely different things.

It's very stupid, I know. Sorry, I'm felling tired and dumb since last week. I'll refrain from making comments in this state of mind for now.

It's getting complicated, trying to keep track of who's allying with who, when, over what, so I went back & put some of the recent timeline together. I've omitted Thibeault, Eberhard, Laden, probably others, and all the stuff before June 14th. Feel free to copy this & add stuff if it seems potentially useful but incomplete. Dates are as I see them stamped on each blogpost linked below; the ordering within any 1 day does not necessarily reflect the order in which things happened.

I am a little unclear on where Myers now stands on the CFI thing. It seems to me he hasn't said much since supporting Skepticon in its decamping from CFI, but I might have missed something. On the one hand, he recently quit skepticism and joined American Atheists as a lifetime member, he's been a regular Skepticon speaker, and he generally seems to be in the same camp as Watson, who seems to have cut the CFI ties fully and with vigor, and taken some others with her. On the other hand, other FtB bloggers have embraced Lindsay and CFI again in the past few days.

Friday June 14:

• CFI Board meets, after having been the recipient of letter-writing/email campaigns regarding Lindsay

Saturday June 15:

• Silverman appears on Brave Hero Radio, spends 30 minutes berating Vacula to denounce "all the shit", to listen to the women (those reporting feeling harassed, any way), and that evidence is not needed

Monday June 17:

• Clint breaks the news about American Atheists Sued for Racial Discrimination, Wrongful Termination (suit filed by a black woman
• CFI Board posts Center for Inquiry Board of Directors Statement on the CEO and the Women in Secularism 2 Conference
• Watson washes her hands of CFI in So Much for Center for Inquiry
• Christina washes her hands of CFI in An Open Letter to the Center for Inquiry, Withdrawing My Participation and Support, including withdrawing as a speaker from the CFI Summit in October 2013
• American Atheists responds to Johnson lawsuit

Wednesday June 19:

• Skepticon Says Goodbye to a Sponsor (CFI); a bunch of FC(n) support that move (as I recall)
• Hutchinson is the first FtB blogger to mention the discrimination lawsuit against American Atheists, in Race, American Atheists and “The Movement”

Friday June 21:

• Point of Inquiry hosts, Mooney and Viskontas, resign from POI/CFI (as reported Tuesday June 25 by Watson)

Saturday June 22:

• Lindsay posts apologies for causing offense and making some people feel unwelcome in his post Some Remarks on My Talk at WIS2.
• Benson says that the Follow up post from Ron Lindsay "...might make conversation possible".
• At some point that day, Myers posts This Silverman guy seems to be saying a lot of the right things

Sunday June 23:

• Zvan indicates acceptance of Lindsay's apology in Apologies are Hard
• Benson puts up several more posts about Lindsay's apology, including saying that she was too grudging in her prior post, now that she's read Zvan's post, and also (somewhere else) points out that she was fir-irst to accept Lindsay's apology

Monday June 24:

• Isaak, producer of Point of Inquiry also resigns from POI/CFI (as reported Tues June 25 by Watson)
• Christina accepts Lindsay's apology in Accepting Ron Lindsay’s Apology
• Marcotte accept's Lindsay's apology in Accepting Apologies And Moving On
• Zvan says she will withhold judgment on the claims against American Atheists for discrimination and wrongful termination, in Watching and Waiting

Tuesday June 25:

• Watson posts the POI trio's press release in Point of Inquiry Team Resigns, Launches New Show with Mother Jones; several FtB bloggers do, too
• Sometime in the past week, Christina's photo has been removed from the speaker montage at http://www.cfisummit.org/

Metalogic42 wrote:Can someone explain to me what the point of a filibuster is?

It means make a very long speech, sometimes for 24 hours or more, so the chance to vote runs out of time. The UK does not have this as there is a time limit.

Metalogic42 wrote:Can someone explain to me what the point of a filibuster is?

Delaying tactic, allowed procedurally in some legislative bodies.

Bottom line: when someone whose politics you like is doing it, they're being brave and selfless and it's a very admirable tactic. When someone whose politics you don't like is doing it, they're being a blowhard and it's a massive waste of time. :D

(If I'm remembering right,the US Senate moves on to other business whenever one of their members simply threatens a filibuster - because otherwise it takes 60% vote to bring debate, meaning the filibuster, to a close, and they can never get that many senators to agree on anything.)

Reasons to post under guest:

• It's a long and honored internet tradition going back to slashdot
• It helps focus on the argument, not the person that said it
• In an age of government spying, it makes it just a bit harder for people to track others
• It makes it easier to avoid the flamewars and middle school drama that pervades this place, the Mykeru / Welch temper tantrums, crap like that that suck the soul out of the pit and show the pit ain't a whole lot better than the fftb assholes, probably just the same but in the outgroup
• It makes it harder to post, which means most comments I'd like to make are not made, which believe me, helps you and me.
• It pisses off the anal retentive control freaks that somehow think they are regulars and own the place and get offended because they view anonymity as some grave offense to them or threat to their stature.

Basically if the admin of a forum makes anonymity an option, people will use that, and that stick up your ass should be directed at the admin, not at the people.

I haven't seen any abuse of anonymous commenting here, no spam, no threats, no libel, no doxing, so truly, y'all pull your heads out of your asses cause your whinges smell like your asses because that's where your heads are. Up your asses.

Skep tickle wrote:It's getting complicated, trying to keep track of who's allying with who, when, over what, so I went back & put some of the recent timeline together. I've omitted Thibeault, Eberhard, Laden, probably others, and all the stuff before June 14th. Feel free to copy this & add stuff if it seems potentially useful but incomplete. Dates are as I see them stamped on each blogpost linked below; the ordering within any 1 day does not necessarily reflect the order in which things happened.

I am a little unclear on where Myers now stands on the CFI thing. It seems to me he hasn't said much since supporting Skepticon in its decamping from CFI, but I might have missed something. On the one hand, he recently quit skepticism and joined American Atheists as a lifetime member, he's been a regular Skepticon speaker, and he generally seems to be in the same camp as Watson, who seems to have cut the CFI ties fully and with vigor, and taken some others with her. On the other hand, other FtB bloggers have embraced Lindsay and CFI again in the past few days.

Friday June 14:

• CFI Board meets, after having been the recipient of letter-writing/email campaigns regarding Lindsay

Saturday June 15:

• Silverman appears on Brave Hero Radio, spends 30 minutes berating Vacula to denounce "all the shit", to listen to the women (those reporting feeling harassed, any way), and that evidence is not needed

Monday June 17:

• Clint breaks the news about American Atheists Sued for Racial Discrimination, Wrongful Termination (suit filed by a black woman
• CFI Board posts Center for Inquiry Board of Directors Statement on the CEO and the Women in Secularism 2 Conference
• Watson washes her hands of CFI in So Much for Center for Inquiry
• Christina washes her hands of CFI in An Open Letter to the Center for Inquiry, Withdrawing My Participation and Support, including withdrawing as a speaker from the CFI Summit in October 2013
• American Atheists responds to Johnson lawsuit

Wednesday June 19:

• Skepticon Says Goodbye to a Sponsor (CFI); a bunch of FC(n) support that move (as I recall)
• Hutchinson is the first FtB blogger to mention the discrimination lawsuit against American Atheists, in Race, American Atheists and “The Movement”

Friday June 21:

• Point of Inquiry hosts, Mooney and Viskontas, resign from POI/CFI (as reported Tuesday June 25 by Watson)

Saturday June 22:

• Lindsay posts apologies for causing offense and making some people feel unwelcome in his post Some Remarks on My Talk at WIS2.
• Benson says that the Follow up post from Ron Lindsay "...might make conversation possible".
• At some point that day, Myers posts This Silverman guy seems to be saying a lot of the right things

Sunday June 23:

• Zvan indicates acceptance of Lindsay's apology in Apologies are Hard
• Benson puts up several more posts about Lindsay's apology, including saying that she was too grudging in her prior post, now that she's read Zvan's post, and also (somewhere else) points out that she was fir-irst to accept Lindsay's apology

Monday June 24:

• Isaak, producer of Point of Inquiry also resigns from POI/CFI (as reported Tues June 25 by Watson)
• Christina accepts Lindsay's apology in Accepting Ron Lindsay’s Apology
• Marcotte accept's Lindsay's apology in Accepting Apologies And Moving On
• Zvan says she will withhold judgment on the claims against American Atheists for discrimination and wrongful termination, in Watching and Waiting

Tuesday June 25:

• Watson posts the POI trio's press release in Point of Inquiry Team Resigns, Launches New Show with Mother Jones; several FtB bloggers do, too
• Sometime in the past week, Christina's photo has been removed from the speaker montage at http://www.cfisummit.org/

So, this is like the real life version of Game of Thrones, but instead of sex and murder, we get internet drama and whinny sub-celebrities thinking they are important.

Skep tickle wrote:

Metalogic42 wrote:Can someone explain to me what the point of a filibuster is?

Delaying tactic, allowed procedurally in some legislative bodies.

Bottom line: when someone whose politics you like is doing it, they're being brave and selfless and it's a very admirable tactic. When someone whose politics you don't like is doing it, they're being a blowhard and it's a massive waste of time. :D

(If I'm remembering right,the US Senate moves on to other business whenever one of their members simply threatens a filibuster - because otherwise it takes 60% vote to bring debate, meaning the filibuster, to a close, and they can never get that many senators to agree on anything.)

After some discussion over this on Twitter, I've come to the conclusion that the entire political process is useless.

Guest wrote:Reasons to post under guest:

• ...
• It makes it easier to avoid the flamewars and middle school drama that pervades this place, the Mykeru / Welch temper tantrums, crap like that that suck the soul out of the pit and show the pit ain't a whole lot better than the fftb assholes, probably just the same but in the outgroup
• It makes it harder to post, which means most comments I'd like to make are not made, which believe me, helps you and me.
• ...

...I haven't seen any abuse of anonymous commenting here...so truly y'all pull your heads out of your asses cause your whinges smell like your asses because that's where your heads are. Up your asses.

So this was one of the comments you really wanted to make, and it's not adding to the middle school drama? Mmmmmmmm.

On the other hand, I would rather be told my own head is up my ass, as opposed to being told to insert a porcupine (decaying or not) or a knife (rusty or not) in it, or that someone plans to remove rusty barbed wire from it. So, uh, welcome, Guest, I guess.

Guest wrote:It's a long and honored internet tradition going back to slashdot

Tradition is retarded. If tradition was a good reason to do something, I'd be a creationist.

It helps focus on the argument, not the person that said it

I'm not actually a creationist, and as far as I know, neither is anyone else here. Any ad hominems would be quickly called out.

In an age of government spying, it makes it just a bit harder for people to track others

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!

It makes it easier to avoid the flamewars and middle school drama that pervades this place, the Mykeru / Welch temper tantrums, crap like that that suck the soul out of the pit and show the pit ain't a whole lot better than the fftb assholes, probably just the same but in the outgroup

And yet you're here regardless, and since you're talking about these things, presumably you're familiar with them.

It makes it harder to post, which means most comments I'd like to make are not made, which believe me, helps you and me.

Cause self-control is really, really hard. But hey, you think we'll be "hurt" by some thing you have to say? Look at my avatar, dumbass.

It pisses off the anal retentive control freaks that somehow think they are regulars and own the place and get offended because they view anonymity as some grave offense to them or threat to their stature.

Your inflated sense of self-importance doesn't piss anyone off. It's just funny that you think you're important.

Basically if the admin of a forum makes anonymity an option, people will use that, and that stick up your ass should be directed at the admin, not at the people.

Hey, Lsuoma: go fuck yourself, you cunt!

What is with the glasses???!!!???

http://adamisaak.com/

:mrgreen:

Southern wrote:

AndrewV69 wrote:

Southern wrote: But don't blame me, I'm just retweeting shit I read from some Latino douches and glanced over. El tarado correndo atras de la buseta! Or something.

Que es esto? My spanish is not that great. What is this about a running behind a minivan?

It's a joke phrase used to show how Spanish and Portuguese can sound so similar, yet mean different things. the full phrase is:

"Ala viene um tarado pelado com su saco en la mano, corriendo atrás de la buseta"
(There goes a foolish bald man with his coat in hands, running after a minivan)

"Lá vem um tarado pelado com seu saco na mão, correndo atrás da buceta"
(There goes a nude sex-offender, with his ballsack in hads, running after a cunt [in the vaginal sense, not describing PZ Myers])

The joke is, the words that are written differently actually do mean the same thing in Spanish and Portuguese (ala = lá, viene = vem, con su = com seu...), while the words that are written the same mean completely different things.

It's very stupid, I know. Sorry, I'm felling tired and dumb since last week. I'll refrain from making comments in this state of mind for now.

No. No. I found that pretty interesting seeing as I do not know any Portuguese. Muy bien. Gracias.

Guest wrote:Reasons to post under guest:

• It's a long and honored internet tradition going back to slashdot
• It helps focus on the argument, not the person that said it
• In an age of government spying, it makes it just a bit harder for people to track others
• It makes it easier to avoid the flamewars and middle school drama that pervades this place, the Mykeru / Welch temper tantrums, crap like that that suck the soul out of the pit and show the pit ain't a whole lot better than the fftb assholes, probably just the same but in the outgroup
• It makes it harder to post, which means most comments I'd like to make are not made, which believe me, helps you and me.
• It pisses off the anal retentive control freaks that somehow think they are regulars and own the place and get offended because they view anonymity as some grave offense to them or threat to their stature.

Basically if the admin of a forum makes anonymity an option, people will use that, and that stick up your ass should be directed at the admin, not at the people.

I haven't seen any abuse of anonymous commenting here, no spam, no threats, no libel, no doxing, so truly, y'all pull your heads out of your asses cause your whinges smell like your asses because that's where your heads are. Up your asses.

So, pretty much it affords you the ability to not own your shit. Got it. Me? I'll *own* what I say. Even when I'm dead wrong. So, go on with your "bad" self.

Tribble wrote:

treestump wrote:You guys seen the latest on DJ Grothe. Myers is shit stirring again, it's all about generating hits on his blog. If people stop coming, he shrivels up and disappears. The sooner the better. DJ Grothe could have told him to go fuck himself (I bet that's what he was thinking inside).
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... -responds/

War is declared:

Hi PZ — did you miss these emails? I am really surprised you posted the email that I explicitly said I sent to you by mistake, instead seeming to suggest I sent it to you intentionally, and that you actually neglected to mention the correction I immediately sent to you below regarding Lippard. It is a pretty impressive mischaracterization. Does it feel underhanded to you in the least? Do you think you are one of the good guys? It is pretty disappointing, and I wonder if you are able to see why.

D.J.

I can answer that: SJWs don't give a damn who they hurt. It's all about the blind adherence to the ideology and it's attendant purity tests.

Catching up on old shit I missed. Gotta say to DJ if he happens to read here: Great response, DJ! Calling it out into the open, but calmly and with great, pointed questions. Having a paper trail that looks like this is a solid method of exposing hypocrisy for the wider public to see: Crazy accusations, followed by a calm, focused questioning reply (with evidence if possible), followed by more and escalated craziness (you *know* PZ et al will escalate the craziness at this point; it's their one-trick pony act). People see this happen again and again and they start to get the message. For all its poking fun and whatnot, its this dedicated, open documentation of bullshit reactionary dogmatism that has been the Pit's biggest attraction for me. I'm glad to see that kind of skepticism becoming bolder and being added to more peoples' skeptical toolboxes these days. We sorely need more of it.

Watched the last hour or so of the Texas Senate considering Senate Bill #5 tonight; the bill would (will?) limit access to abortion quite significantly: http://www.wfaa.com/news/texas-news/Rea ... 40781.html

Proceedings were being streamed live on Youtube, and lots of people were tweeting about the proceedings.

Pretty wild. The special session was to come to an end at midnight. Filibuster by a Democratic senator was stopped in its 13th hour on confused or convoluted procedural grounds, after which the assembled crowd in the chamber started yelling & chanting & disrupted proceedings. The senators gathered at the front of the chambers and reportedly voted 19-10, or 17-12, to pass the bill, however the vote was taken just after midnight (so, after the Special Session was technically - and should have been legally - over). There doesn't seem to be question based on the live feed that the vote was after midnight, on June 26th. However, the vote is now being reported on the Senate website as having occurred before midnight, on June 25th.

At the end of the session, there were ~180,000 people watching it live on youtube (and the building was packed with people, too).

AP is reporting that the bill passed, and that's getting picked up by other news outlets:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/texas-se ... rtion-bill

Texas Tribune is reporting that the validity of the vote is in question:
http://www.texastribune.org/2013/06/26/ ... ssion-wan/

As I predicted, Watson is eating crow too:

As I posted on Twitter just after reading it, it’s a good start, and I’m happy to rescind my previous calls for a boycott of the organization.

"He treated us with contempt." [Greta Christina]

Contempt is exactly what they deserve.

Here's side by side screenshots of the Texas Senate voting record from tonight, before on the right and after on the left, as tweeted out by Al Stefanelli a few minutes ago (see the link for credit for the image; others also grabbed images of the "before"). Note the top 4 lines, & how the date changes from 6/26 to 6/25 (= "26/6 to 25/6" for those of you who use that convention):

https://twitter.com/Stefanelli/status/3 ... 17/photo/1

Funny comment under Watson's crow eating piece:

Benny wrote:There was actually another story that happened at nearly the same time as all of this in the BDSM world. Shibaricon, a HUGE rope bondage conference, had some significant problems a week after WiS2. A large group of people who had worked with the event as speakers, educators, staff members, volunteers, etc (myself included) signed an open letter voicing concerns about several problems. The apology eventually put forward by the event organizers there was very well written and showed a better understanding of the problems than I had expected. This letter came out within 24 hours of the CFI board statement and I felt it was a stark contrast and a lesson in exactly this issue. Though we have yet to see if changes actually take place at Shibaricon (it’s the kind of situation that requires real leadership change) they seem to be headed on the right path.

There are HUGE rope bondage conferences?

One can only speculate what kind of problems they could have had.

http://skepchick.org/2013/06/adequate-v ... apologies/

Jan Steen wrote:As I predicted, Watson is eating crow too:

As I posted on Twitter just after reading it, it’s a good start, and I’m happy to rescind my previous calls for a boycott of the organization.

"He treated us with contempt." [Greta Christina]

Contempt is exactly what they deserve.

Where did you see Watson's comment? Link?

Ah, found it: http://skepchick.org/2013/06/adequate-v ... apologies/

Duh, now I also see it after the rope bondage part.

Mind blown by watching Texas Senate proceedings, and late hour, I guess.

Steersman wrote:

However, I think none of that is particularly relevant to the question that started this whole sequence of comments, i.e., whether he can justifiably be called hypocritical for a series of very specific and well-defined actions in the past that took place well before he had even articulated a judgement – however erroneous or misguided – that such actions were ethically immoral and beyond the pale.

I swear, use that "sauce for the goose..." one more time and I may have to kick a puppy just to release the exasperation!

And as I said a few pages ago, Myers still has the occasional "mysogynistic" slip up. He never akcnowledges it or offers apologies. So, yes, hypocrite.

Jan Steen wrote:
One can only speculate what kind of problems they could have had.

http://skepchick.org/2013/06/adequate-v ... apologies/

Not enough rope?

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:

Jan Steen wrote:
One can only speculate what kind of problems they could have had.

http://skepchick.org/2013/06/adequate-v ... apologies/

Not enough rope?

Maybe dwindling membership in the Scouts is having a knock-on effect with knotting skills. They need a Junior Rope Bondage organisation to feed in to the system.

Haha, the news feeds all say the Texas bill passed, but in caucus the Lt Governor allowed (just a few minutes ago) as how it didn't actually pass. Dewey defeats Truman, and all. Twitterverse is way ahead of the news organizations on this.

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:

Jan Steen wrote:
One can only speculate what kind of problems they could have had.

http://skepchick.org/2013/06/adequate-v ... apologies/

Not enough rope?

A frayed knot. It was more serious than that.

Odd question for the Pit though I do have a reason for asking it. Do boxer shorts have pockets? I had a run in with someone who insisted they do. Why the fuck would you need pockets in your underwear?

Pogsurf continues to try to tuck burrs under PZ's saddle: http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/i ... rs-in-2011

Walter Ego wrote:Odd question for the Pit though I do have a reason for asking it. Do boxer shorts have pockets? I had a run in with someone who insisted they do. Why the fuck would you need pockets in your underwear?

Depends. Underwear boxer shorts don't. Ever. Sports/running boxer shorts usually have one (right side).

(I'm trying to pretend I do sports.)

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:

Walter Ego wrote:Odd question for the Pit though I do have a reason for asking it. Do boxer shorts have pockets? I had a run in with someone who insisted they do. Why the fuck would you need pockets in your underwear?

Depends. Underwear boxer shorts don't. Ever. Sports/running boxer shorts usually have one (right side).

That's what I thought. The manager of this budget motel hotel I'm staying at said I can't wear boxers, i.e., underwear in the lobby. Admittedly the shorts I was wearing looked like boxers but they have pockets. Stupid bitch.

A deep from my heart thank you to rystefn for talking to me on Skype last night.

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:

Steersman wrote:


However, I think none of that is particularly relevant to the question that started this whole sequence of comments, i.e., whether he can justifiably be called hypocritical for a series of very specific and well-defined actions in the past that took place well before he had even articulated a judgement – however erroneous or misguided – that such actions were ethically immoral and beyond the pale.

I swear, use that "sauce for the goose..." one more time and I may have to kick a puppy just to release the exasperation!

And as I said a few pages ago, Myers still has the occasional "mysogynistic" slip up. He never akcnowledges it or offers apologies. So, yes, hypocrite.

:lol: Sorry about that chief. But when you only have 140 characters, 20 of which are taken up by a link ....

But that tweet was a reference to a joke that had been on PZ's Science Blog some 5 years ago: "what people are really afraid of when they say they're offended (that the other people are right)". PZ is hypocritical there, I think, because he advanced a principle 5 years ago that he's conveniently forgotten about when it comes to being offended, apparently, by Lindsay's speech.That I thought to remind him of. Nice guy that I am.

But more or less the inverse or converse of the case that TFJ, Strawkins, and I (among others) have been discussing. There it was a case of a principle that PZ has advanced relatively recently that TFJ, Strawkins and others want to use to judge PZ a hypocrite because he hadn't acted in accordance with that principle several years before PZ had even advanced it. Like trying to judge someone guilty of a crime for an act in the past that wasn't a crime at the time it was committed even though it is now.

He's not acting on what he's preaching. Do you have any link to some kind of apology, or mea culpa, that he's ever issued on anything at all? I don't remember seeing any. So for him to brag over Ron L's apology is, to say the least, very hypocritical.

Shorter form: I really don't like Myers and will not cut him any slack, just as he acts with people he doesn't like. What's good for the goo... errr...

I totally fucked my joke. I meant "what's sauce for the goo...errr..."

I hope you catched that one.

Skep tickle wrote:On the one hand, he recently quit skepticism and joined American Atheists as a lifetime member, he's been a regular Skepticon speaker, and he generally seems to be in the same camp as Watson, who seems to have cut the CFI ties fully and with vigor, and taken some others with her.

Probably the best way to view the Myers/Watson relationship:
(Arnold Schwarzenegger as David Silverman)

[youtube]xO1kKemcwYk[/youtube]

Walter Ego wrote:That's what I thought. The manager of this budget motel hotel I'm staying at said I can't wear boxers, i.e., underwear in the lobby. Admittedly the shorts I was wearing looked like boxers but they have pockets. Stupid bitch.

Sounds like she was heteronormatively sexualising you. And flaunting her apparelist privilege.

Poor Edward Gemmer, even here he can't seem to get a discussion going about the American Atheist discrimination lawsuit. I think the woman in question did the right thing. It would have been more dramatic and made a bigger splash in the "community" if she had just blogged about it and made her accusations online, but it seems that this may very well be an ACTUAL, REAL case of harassment/discrimination. Only a complete idiot would personally write about it on the net if what you wanted was legal/monetary repercussions for the perpetrators, not just a platform where you can claim victimhood and sympathy.
That's just not how things are done in the blogosphere. You can cry and whine about harassment and discrimination over and over and over again, but actually do something about it through proper legal channels? You'd need things like proof, evidence (those evil patriarchal constructs), a defined and clear legal delineation of what constitutes "harassment" and "discrimination", not just vague "if your emotions tell you have been harassed and discriminated against, then you have been". I'd love to see that last one stand up in court.
I'm going to guess there's much more interesting conversations to be had on the subject far from the atheo-skeptic "community", especially the SJW factions.

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:I totally fucked my joke. I meant "what's sauce for the goo...errr..."

I hope you catched that one.

I did, sort of - something didn't ring quite right - getting late for me - but I caught the salt of it.

But as for PZ's response to Lindsay's speech - and those of virtually everyone at FftB & Skepchick, I thought it largely self-indulgent, way beyond what might have been reasonable; massive amounts of crocodile tears and umbrage ...

And not particulaly happy about the way the apologies have been accepted; a little too much like trying to dictate terms when the positions of FftB/Skepchick before, during and after weren't particularly credible themselves. As I argued recently here. But it will be interesting to see how things develop ....

['tis time once again to call it a day; night all ....]

Skep tickle wrote:Ah, found it: http://skepchick.org/2013/06/adequate-v ... apologies/

Rebecca Watson wrote:This doesn’t mean I’m going to pull out a checkbook (if those still existed) and start throwing my money at CFI. There’s a certain amount of lost trust, lingering disappointment, and, dare I say it, skepticism that results from a situation like this, and that apology isn’t enough to clean all that up in one tidy sweep.

I think I finally understand Rebecca Watson's thought process. See, in her mind, 'skepticism' is the same as 'butthurt'. Explains so much!

ERV wrote:

Jan Steen wrote:Aaaand ... of course the once villified Mooney now turns out to be not so bad after all. Who knew?

BFFS!!!!!!

Jan Steen wrote:

Dick Strawkins wrote:Adam Isaak is (or recently was) the boyfriend of Rebecca Watson.
Good riddance to the lot of them.

Ah, that explains a lot.

Yes, its amazing how so little can explain so much. From why female dissenters have been accused of chasing cock in the skeptical community, to why three individuals with no connection to WISC2 magically decided to quit over comments made there.

To an outside observer, it doesnt appear as if Watson has friends (or boyfriends). She has people she can use, and then ditches them when they are no longer exploitable.

Initially, when I read the reasoning behind their flounce, that they couldn't get certain favored guests due to CFIs action, it seemed they were following in the footsteps of the mainstream media's obsessive pandering to preserve "access".

When you add Adam Isaak's relationship with Rebecca Watson, it's still access.

Maybe someone should point out all the supposedly stand-alone feminist women, like Dillahunty's wife, Beth Presswood, who seem to have "networked" in the community, if not gotten their gigs outright, the "old fashioned way".

What, those "Queen Bees" and "Sister Punishers"? Just because they have managed, against all odds, to get into positions of respect and authority despite the overwhelming misogyny and patriarchal structures that as well all known are integral parts of every single facet of society, and thus by extension the atheist "community", doesn't mean they shouldn't agitate and fight for more women to have the same thing handed to them on a platter, regardless of merit or capacity. Anyways they probably got there by sucking up to the male gatekeepers of power, anyways, who condescendingly allowed them a few crumbs for being good little woman slaves.

BarnOwl wrote:What is with the glasses???!!!???

http://adamisaak.com/

:mrgreen:

I don't think they actually have glass in them.

And this is the reason for them:

[youtube]MUUC5KWzD3M[/youtube]